On McNamara

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The "physical confrontation" of McNamara in back of Quincy House seems to have provoked a "courtesy backlash" here at Harvard. As one who was himself present, let me try to state the minority position.

I shall construct a hypothetical case. Let us suppose that at the time of the Hungarian Revolt Khrushchev had paid a visit to Moscow U. Let us imagine that the students (who in fact were indignant, and who did protest) had succeeded in "physically confronting" Krushchev. Let us imagine that they piled him with embarassing questions and that they hooted indignantly at his answers. Would we have criticized them for discourtesy? Would we have criticized them for obstructing Krushchev's movements? Would we have criticized them for disturbing the dignity of a great academic institution?

Of course not. We would have praised them for idealism and for courage. To raise the issue of discourtesy at such a time would have been treated as a joke.

I am skeptical of "free world" rhetoric. But, as Scheer said in his speech at the demonstration, those who employ that rhetoric have a duty to be consistent. It was not courteous to refer to Krushchev as "the butcher of Budapest." But if Krushchev was the butcher of Budapest then McNamara and Johnson are the butchers of Vietnam. If my hypothetical Moscow U. students would have been profoundly in order "physically confronting" Krushchev, then 800 Harvard students were profoundly in order in physically confronting McNamara. Talk of "courtesy" is in the worst taste when butchery is the issue.

But, I will be told, "we" (i.e., the administration and many, perhaps most, of the students and faculty) do not agree with this moral condemnation of the war. Many regard the war as a mistake; but few are willing to call it butchery.

But in the Soviet Union too a majority of those in "responsible" positions ("responsible" for what, I am tempted to ask when I am confronted with this rhetoric of responsibility) thought the issue in Hungary was one of tactics and not a moral issue at all. I am aware of this view, that disagreements about Vietnam should be treated as disagreements about means between men with common ideals and a mutual respect. It is precisely to emphasize that Vietnam is a moral issue, precisely to emphasize that they do not have common ideals and a mutual respect with those whom they must, even if the discourtesy troubles, label as butchers, that the students demonstrated.

But their position must not be misunderstood. They have no objection to genuine dialogue about issues of war and peace -- even genuine dialogue and debate with butchers. It was precisely because every opportunity to obtain such dialogue by working through institutional channels, every opportunity to get McNamara to present his views publicly, was rebuffed that the Quincy House demonstration was scheduled as a last resort. It is unfortunate that the demonstration, and above all the tactic of "physical confrontation," injured the sensibilities of many people on the Harvard Faculty and among the student body. But one should never accept the view that the issue is "courtesy or discourtesy." To see it in that way is to miss what the opposition to this war is all about. Hilary Putnam   Professor of Philosophy